ViolentBoo wrote:

http://imgur.com/a/rrU0V

This is what I got give or take a millisecond or two. Good lunch.

1. 00:12:292 (1) - strong piano doesn't feel emphasised. on 00:13:341 (3), there is another strong piano, but here you clearly have emphasised and not on 00:13:341 (3)?
2. 00:15:229 (6,7) - questionable spacing from 00:15:019 (5). this placement makes 00:14:809 (4,5) is awkward. even though it does emphasise the strong piano, it doesn't follow the 1.25x ds from 00:14:390 (2,3).
3. 00:16:068 (3) - i don't think there is any reasoning for this ds. can you explain why it is done like this?
4. 00:17:956 (3) - ^
5. 00:20:474 (4) - ^
6. these are all i'm going to mention since this map is full of very questionable ds change and randomness to its circle placements. but keep in mind of them in the future.
7. 03:06:785 (6,1) - closer, because unless you want to guarantee a 100/50 on (6) since it's so unexpectedly there.
8. 03:10:194 (1) - really nice slider
9. 03:21:942 (1,2,3,4) - now that i think about it, i think it's better to replace these as 1/8 slider since no one able to play a 3.5 star map will be able to accuracy those
10. 03:32:537 (4) - delete note so you can make emphasis on 03:32:641 (5) better, and move (5) somewhere not close to 03:32:327 (3). i know i know, "emphasis this, emphasis that". but i only bring that up so many times because you've failed to consistently do them and when it's so crucial to this song like the first point i make.
11. 04:50:054 - missing note here

Arusamour wrote:

Forward (3.5 stars, 774 notes)

1. 00:12:292 (1) - strong piano doesn't feel emphasised. on 00:13:341 (3), there is another strong piano, but here you clearly have emphasised and not on 00:13:341 (3)? adjusted 1 to have more emphasis
2. 00:15:229 (6,7) - questionable spacing from 00:15:019 (5). this placement makes 00:14:809 (4,5) is awkward. even though it does emphasise the strong piano, it doesn't follow the 1.25x ds from 00:14:390 (2,3). its stronger sound than 2,3
3. 00:16:068 (3) - i don't think there is any reasoning for this ds. can you explain why it is done like this? its stronger than 2
4. 00:17:956 (3) - ^ stacked 3 under 4
5. 00:20:474 (4) - ^adjusted spacing
6. these are all i'm going to mention since this map is full of very questionable ds change and randomness to its circle placements. but keep in mind of them in the future.
7. 03:06:785 (6,1) - closer, because unless you want to guarantee a 100/50 on (6) since it's so unexpectedly there.ok
8. 03:10:194 (1) - really nice slider magikarp
9. 03:21:942 (1,2,3,4) - now that i think about it, i think it's better to replace these as 1/8 slider since no one able to play a 3.5 star map will be able to accuracy those ok
10. 03:32:537 (4) - delete note so you can make emphasis on 03:32:641 (5) better, and move (5) somewhere not close to 03:32:327 (3). i know i know, "emphasis this, emphasis that". but i only bring that up so many times because you've failed to consistently do them and when it's so crucial to this song like the first point i make. ok changed it
11. 04:50:054 - missing note hereI did a thing

Jonawaga wrote:

M4M

~mod~

1. Source: 東方Project
2. Add Tags: 舞花 Maika NAGI☆ Little Planet ZUN 東方妖々夢 Perfect Cherry Blossomthanks for this stuff xd
3. OD 8 is too high is this is a hard
4. 00:24:460 (2,3) - idk if this has been testplayed, but the spacing is too close. I can imagine a player trying to hit (3) 1/2 beat after (2)it has been testplayed and I have yet to see this read incorrectly.
5. 00:55:928 (1,2) - unstack, the pitch is changing, there should be motion here sure~changed it up a bit.
6. 01:40:404 (2,3) - ^ disagreed
7. 02:04:320 (2,3,4) - make the spacing more even
8. 02:17:117 (2,3) - unstack, the sounds are completely different I don't see the issue.
9. 02:20:159 - why ignore this?
10. 03:15:858 (2,3,4,5) - spacing here could be confusing they are close enough to be readable.
11. 04:13:131 (4) - lower this sure
12. 04:55:718 (10,1) - jump is a little huge disagreed + there are bigger ones

Good Luck~!!

1. You are pure evil for this and also this.
2. But seriously though, is there any reason for cs5 ar9 hp6 od7 all on a mid 3 star map? To me it seems random and I would change most of them to something more standard unless you have a specific reason for keeping them this way.

1. 00:09:774 (4,5) - maybe make the spacing between these a bit higher for emphasis on the 5. also i would consider making the 5 slider 2 circles instead
2. 00:10:823 (1,2) - to me it seems weird that this one is not stacked while 00:11:662 (3,4) - this one is.. maybe pick one or the other for consistency?
3. 00:15:439 (7) - personally I think this sounds better without a whistle, the song is very quiet try to be minimalistic with hitsounding
4. 00:16:697 (6,7) - this is an inconsistency with 00:09:984 (5,6) - in your hitsounding, try to be consistent with that
5. 00:18:585 (6) - however.. i think putting a whistle here and 00:20:474 (4) - here makes a nice pattern leading into the section with lyrics
6. 00:23:411 (7) - change this into 2 circles, there's an important lyric on the white tick
7. 00:23:830 (1) - starting here I would change the rhythm to something like this. Reason being is because a lyric is being skipped here 00:24:879 - so maybe just restructure this with emphasis on the 4 slider I suggested
8. 00:27:397 - need a note here.. i know you're mainly following the piano but ignoring lyrics like this is kinda meh
9. 00:29:075 (1) - starting here change the rhythm to something like this to follow the lyrics as well as the piano
10. 00:31:173 (2) - two circles follows piano better (my explanations might start getting short because in my eyes there are a lot of repeat offenders)
11. 00:33:690 - and 00:34:110 - really need a note for the lyrics (also the second circle should start nc imo)
12. 00:33:690 (5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - on the same note, to follow the piano here I really think that this sounds a lot better after adding in those two circles covering the lyrics
13. 00:36:418 - note\
14. 00:40:404 (3) - a rhythm change to this covers the lyrics and the piano better
15. 00:42:187 (5,6) - this look nice but it might be to difficult I really don't know
16. 00:42:921 (2) - you could turn this into a 1/1 repeater if you want, just a thought
17. 00:43:970 (1) - this seems kinda odd, I would just change it to a 1/1 slider and put a circle where the old slider end used to be
18. 00:45:439 (5) - two circles
19. 00:46:907 (3) - maybe turn this into a 1/2 and two circles or two 1/2s, as the section is building into something more dense
20. 01:00:963 (1) - as the song picks up, maybe gradually increase the volume of the hitsounds
21. 01:07:676 (1) - here would be another big increase
22. 01:12:711 (1) - maybe turn this into a 3/4 with a circle on the white tick
23. 01:14:599 (2,3) - here too
24. 01:19:215 (1) - this rhythm works better I think
25. 01:21:103 (1) - another 3/4 slider with circle on the white tick but this one is kinda fine either way imo. I think that these sort of changes I'm suggesting sound really nice with your hitsounds
26. 01:27:606 (1) - ^ (fine either way is what I'm trying to say)
27. 01:30:439 (3,4) - okay I can see the issue here, being that you're following the drums and there's no kick on the white tick but having this sort of thing in such a low sr map or even in general kinda screws up the player. My suggestion is making 01:29:914 (2) - into a 1/1 and connecting them somehow.
    
    

Logic Agent wrote:

Hi, m4m stuff.

[General]

1. You are pure evil for this and also this.
2. But seriously though, is there any reason for cs5 ar9 hp6 od7 all on a mid 3 star map? To me it seems random and I would change most of them to something more standard unless you have a specific reason for keeping them this way.I'm not changed CS as that would call for a re-map and the current CS helps with the underlying pattern I'm attempting. as for the others I'll wait for specific suggestions as to what exactly they should be for this kind of song. Also I did change OD to 7 from a previous mod(after revisiting it) from OD 8

[Forward]

1. 00:09:774 (4,5) - maybe make the spacing between these a bit higher for emphasis on the 5. also i would consider making the 5 slider 2 circles instead Then angle change I put in here seems to me as enough emphasis for this soft part.
2. 00:10:823 (1,2) - to me it seems weird that this one is not stacked while 00:11:662 (3,4) - this one is.. maybe pick one or the other for consistency? the first one is not stacked because I hear some sort of accent on 2 where as for the second one it kind of builds up to accent the following 1
3. 00:15:439 (7) - personally I think this sounds better without a whistle, the song is very quiet try to be minimalistic with hitsounding ok
4. 00:16:697 (6,7) - this is an inconsistency with 00:09:984 (5,6) - in your hitsounding, try to be consistent with that rhythmically speaking I agree, but put whistles where I heard the accents
5. 00:18:585 (6) - however.. i think putting a whistle here and 00:20:474 (4) - here makes a nice pattern leading into the section with lyrics alright I'll try it out.
6. 00:23:411 (7) - change this into 2 circles, there's an important lyric on the white tick I'm focusing on the piano when choosing my rhythm here.~along with some percussive flavoring.
7. 00:23:830 (1) - starting here I would change the rhythm to something like this. Reason being is because a lyric is being skipped here 00:24:879 - so maybe just restructure this with emphasis on the 4 slider I suggested I'm following the piano xd
8. 00:27:397 - need a note here.. i know you're mainly following the piano but ignoring lyrics like this is kinda meh same as previous
9. 00:29:075 (1) - starting here change the rhythm to something like this to follow the lyrics as well as the piano I like how I have it currently because I don't want to break the flow with a 1/2 break after the triple because it sounds flowy to me
10. 00:31:173 (2) - two circles follows piano better (my explanations might start getting short because in my eyes there are a lot of repeat offenders) I like my pattern better here because its kind of a growth. where circles would interrupt that
11. 00:33:690 - and 00:34:110 - really need a note for the lyrics (also the second circle should start nc imo) I'm follow piano pretty consistently so I'ma just ignore following rhythm suggestions like this.
12. 00:33:690 (5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - on the same note, to follow the piano here I really think that this sounds a lot better after adding in those two circles covering the lyrics
13. 00:36:418 - note\
14. 00:40:404 (3) - a rhythm change to this covers the lyrics and the piano better
15. 00:42:187 (5,6) - this look nice but it might be to difficult I really don't know sr is deceptive
16. 00:42:921 (2) - you could turn this into a 1/1 repeater if you want, just a thought
17. 00:43:970 (1) - this seems kinda odd, I would just change it to a 1/1 slider and put a circle where the old slider end used to be
18. 00:45:439 (5) - two circles
19. 00:46:907 (3) - maybe turn this into a 1/2 and two circles or two 1/2s, as the section is building into something more dense
20. 01:00:963 (1) - as the song picks up, maybe gradually increase the volume of the hitsounds
21. 01:07:676 (1) - here would be another big increase
22. 01:12:711 (1) - maybe turn this into a 3/4 with a circle on the white tick I like my current rhythm~its pretty consistent throughout
23. 01:14:599 (2,3) - here too
24. 01:19:215 (1) - this rhythm works better I think I disagree with the 3/4 slider idea again, just don't like 3/4 sliders unless its following the specific rhythm
25. 01:21:103 (1) - another 3/4 slider with circle on the white tick but this one is kinda fine either way imo. I think that these sort of changes I'm suggesting sound really nice with your hitsounds
26. 01:27:606 (1) - ^ (fine either way is what I'm trying to say)
27. 01:30:439 (3,4) - okay I can see the issue here, being that you're following the drums and there's no kick on the white tick but having this sort of thing in such a low sr map or even in general kinda screws up the player. My suggestion is making 01:29:914 (2) - into a 1/1 and connecting them somehow.SR isn't difficulty for maps like this ~ although it does get somewhat close it isn't quite what it should be

wew that was a lot. I think I'll come back and add more at some point, modding is exhausting. so far not too bad though!same xd

1. there's a been a recent shift in what mappers have been using for metadata for touhou stuff. I recommend using 東方妖々夢　～ Perfect Cherry Blossom as your source since it comes from this specific game.
2. add to tags: Mystical Dream Snow Cherry Petal C82 touhou
3. i'm no timing expert, but your offset is definitely early. try offset=562 instead
4. I could barely hear hitsounds during playtest even though my hitsound volume is way higher than music volume. recommend bumping up all hitsound volumes by at least 10%

1. 00:11:033 (2,3) - with slider leniency, these play much closer than DS indicates. try moving 00:11:662 (3,4) - to like [~241,~131] to make 1/1 rhythm more obvious
2. 00:22:886 (3) - would remove this note. triplet feels a little too intense to start this section off. also the piano is 1/6 snap anyways, not 1/4. same thing at 00:29:495 (2,3,4) -
3. 00:23:830 (1,2,3) - spacings for 1/1 and 1/2 rhythms are too similar, which makes it uncomfortable for players at this level. use much bigger spacing between 00:24:460 (2,3) -
4. 00:32:432 (1,2,3,4,5) - same thing. 00:33:061 (4,5) - has exact same spacing as 00:32:432 (1,2) - even though they're different rhythms also, why not DS 00:33:061 (4,5,1) - since (1) isn't particularly strong beat. lots of other places where 1/1 and 1/2 spacings aren't clear, but I won't mention them anymore
5. 00:34:949 (3,4,5) - can improve aesthetics by making visual spacing here look the same http://puu.sh/qw8qM/84b3239e54.jpg just small things to make map look polished
6. 00:43:970 (1) - make this a 1/1 slider. red tick is stronger here since it has both vocal and piano sound, whereas the white tick only has piano sound
7. 00:52:152 (6) - try normal sampleset here to follow snare drum sound. would also use bigger spacing at 00:51:942 (5,6) - for same reason
8. 00:54:250 - strong beat should be clickable imo. rhythm suggestion: http://puu.sh/qw8PB/c70c9c0e68.jpg
9. 00:54:879 (4) - slider skips over strong sounds on white and red ticks, but you map to non-existing sound on blue tick x.x just do something like this: http://puu.sh/qw8Um/120905e82c.jpg
10. 00:58:236 (3,4,5,6,7) - another place where I think equal visual spacing would help aesthetics. http://puu.sh/qw8Zr/4f837df658.jpg also gives nice emphasis to drum sound at (7)
11. after you map vocal and skip drum sounds at 01:00:124 (2) - it sounds bad to suddenly switch back to drums and ignore vocal at 01:01:383 -
12. 01:07:152 - same thing here. just add a note on the blue tick for vocal. also fixes spacing issue
13. 01:21:732 (2,3) - blanket this
14. 01:36:208 (1) - there's nothing on this downbeat. I would leave this blank so 01:35:998 (6) - can be emphasized properly. Also, I think stacking 01:35:998 (6) - and a note/slider at 01:36:418 - would be good since it stops flow of map, which matches pause in distinct sounds in song
15. 01:37:467 (5,6,7) - these are 4 distinct drum sounds, so make them 4 distinct notes
16. 01:38:516 (2) - ignores so many sounds :/ try a 1/1 repeat slider instead. still makes it lower note density but follows song better imo
17. 01:40:404 (2,3) - recommend unstack since they are two different drum sounds. also try drum-clap for 01:40:613 (3) - and drum-finish for 01:40:823 (4) -
18. 02:09:564 (1,2,3,4) - don't use same spacing for 1/2 and 1/4 rhythms
19. 02:13:131 (1,2,3,4) - probably better to simplify this to 3/4 repeat slider. kinda like how you skip drum sounds on white and red ticks at 02:12:292 (3) -
20. 03:00:124 - I recommend lower SV and/or simplifying rhythms more in this section. song intensity drops way down after kiai section, but map doesn't really reflect that very well
21. 04:02:851 (2) - remove finish
22. 04:06:208 (3) - at least end this slider at 04:07:047 - , so the first drum sound at 04:07:467 - is clickable
23. 04:22:362 (1) - soft-finish on sliderhead

UndeadCapulet wrote:

Mod for FELT:

Forward

Lower AR to 8 wtf ya i just put it w/e I feel comfortable with to start off ... anyways fixed

00:22:783 (2,3,4) - nice job keeping stacking in mind for your arranges btw, not even half experienced mappers do this thanks xd

1. 00:15:650 (1,2) - Change this into a slider to match 00:08:937 (1) - . Every rhtyhm change in your intro is especially noticeable, unless you have super good reason to keep this as is, you should really change it.yup, listened with no hitsounds and I fixed it.
2. Skipping 00:18:797 - is really weird, especially when you map it at 00:32:224 (5) - . I guess so but there is a vocal on the second one that would be kind of awkward skipping
3. 00:21:525 (3,4,5,6,1) - It would be better to include the slider into the increasing spacing pattern as well, taking it out just makes play awkward, you may as well not have the spacing increasing pattern at all if it doesn't build into anything. Oh, and if you want to make the spacing increase pattern look pretty, there's a formula for it: copy+paste previous 2 notes, ctrl+shift+s by 1.1x, ctrl+shift+r by 30 degrees, stack into place. The result looks like this.took out the spacing increase but tried to make it look better kind of how you suggested and then re positioned the next slider to better accommodate for it.
4. 00:23:413 (6,1) - This angle puts a ton of unnecessary emphasis on the second slider. I'd recommend using less of a diagonal here so the cursor plays it more horizontally and smoothly.made 6 parallel to 1 to help ease the amount of emphasis without completely removing it. this way I can keep this angle slider for follow/previous patterns
5. 00:23:832 (1,2) - These being parallel makes for the second slider being really unsatisfying to play. I think you should have more of a direction change so the players feels they have to move for the sliderend. This happens a lot in your map, at places like 00:35:790 (1,2) - and 00:37:678 (1,2) - , I'd recommend you go through the whole thing to check for parallel sliders that result in little cursor motion.I changed the ones your have mentioned and will change others that I find.
6. 00:27:608 (1,2,3) - Compare to 00:25:091 (3,4,5) - . It doesn't make sense for the spacing to be higher here, because the piano keys are quieter and lower in pitch.fixed
7. 00:29:077 (1,2) - It's weird to stack here when it was spaced so far before at 00:22:364 (1,2) - . f i x e d
8. 00:34:322 (1,2) - It's weird to stack here when you didn't in the intro (00:20:895 (1,2) - ). There should at least be as much motion as the less intense part of the song.f i x e d
9. I think you should increase the overall note density during the 00:35:790 (1) - bookmark section. You have a lot of 1/1 gaps that skip over drum and piano beats for no reason, and when your into was so heavy on 1/2 clicking, this part feels really underemphasized. Same for the 01:58:028 (1) - bookmark section.now that I think about it I feel kind of silly
10. 00:41:664 (4,5,6) - I'd recommend changing this pattern because right now the player just hovers at the repeat end for a bit, which is kinda lame unless you're trying to emphasize something in particular. I think this part would be more fun if you just stack the 1/4 beats under the sliderhead. Same for 02:10:511 (2,3) - . changed the first one but not the second
11. 00:42:504 (1,2,3) - This rhythm should be consistent with 00:35:790 (1,2,3) - . I did something to adjust the rhythm to be more consistent with that because there is a more audible piano sound in the first example than the second, but it can be subject to change still
12. 01:12:504 (5,1) - This rhythm doesn't make much sense because there's no beat on the first white tick. I think you should put a 1/1 slider at 5 like you do through the rest of the kiai. Same for 02:34:741 (4,1) - and 04:10:406 (4,1) - . tried something ;w;
13. Something that kinda bugs me with your kiais: you skip a LOT of drum beats, to instead use 1/1, 3/2, or even 2/1 sliders, I assume to map vocals instead. But it's pretty much totally random what beats you skip when. For example, compare 01:32:643 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - , 02:54:881 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - , and 04:30:546 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - . They have totally different rhythms. You have no real concept behind your rhythming, and in general I think you should try to be more consistent about how you map the different sounds in your map. And you should also try to skip less of the strong drum beats for better hitsounding rhythms.
14. 01:16:909 (4,5,6,7,8,9) - Listen closely to here and every similar part in your kiais, you aren't mapping the beats consistently/properly.
15. 01:37:678 (8) - Don't think a kick slider fits here, esp when you use circles in the later kiais.
16. 01:38:518 (2,1) - I think you should revise this rhythming to emphasize 01:39:357 - more.
17. 01:41:245 (1,3) - Your map's biggest issues are shown off here: you skip 01:41:455 (2) - but add a note to 01:42:504 (3) - when there isn't really a sound there. You do actually like this song, right? Then actually map it!
18. 01:50:476 (2) - I think you should take out the jump because these beats are so quiet.
19. 01:51:315 (1,2,3) - Revise these rhythms to be closer to 01:45:021 (1,2,1) - .
20. 01:54:462 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - Revise these rhythms to be more consistent in following vocals, and to properly emphasize the strong vocals with clicking.
21. 02:16:490 (1) - Why are you skipping the blue tick orz
22. 02:22:643 (4,5) - Missnapped: http://puu.sh/qBJKz/e5da50916c.jpg
23. 02:25:161 (2) - ^:http://puu.sh/qBJPa/e7e733f3ad.jpg though you should really just match the rhythming at 01:02:643 (1,2,3) - .
24. 02:37:469 (3,4,5) - Completely disagree with this style of spacing because you never do it anywhere else in the map except this one kiai, and it isn't even fun to play in this context. Change it to something else, along with 02:50:895 (3,4,5) - . I changed it to better resemble the pattern in the 3rd kiai
25. For the 03:00:126 (1) - section, you should revise your NC job to fit the piano better, putting the NC's at 03:01:385 (4) - , 03:02:643 (3) - , etc. instead of the downbeats. (Revise your rhythming to fit as well)
26. 03:13:552 (1) - Kinda awkward to place this under the long sliderbody but still also poking out a bit. I'd move this to either stack under here or just not be under the slider at all.
27. 03:16:909 (1) - Change to circles to match with 03:13:552 (1,2) - .
28. 03:20:266 (1,2) - Make these the same object for a cooler effect.
29. 03:21:525 (5) - pls map blue tick ;w;
30. 03:38:587 (1) - Why does this start on a purple tick lol. You should also prob end it at 03:41:245 - or 03:41:979 - instead of some random tick.
31. Revise the 03:42:084 (1) - section's rhythms to emphasize vocals better, or to fully map piano like you did in earlier parts.
32. 04:06:210 (3) - Why does this end on the white tick I'm so fkin triggered please map ur songs beats omg
33. 04:17:748 (2,3) - This is pretty big jump
34. 04:35:790 (1,2,3) - Make consistent with 04:39:147 (1,2) - etc etc this pretty much applies to the whole outro (or just the whole map lol i wrote too many words for this mod)
35. 04:50:056 (3) - Move to 04:50:266 - and revise placements as needed, you never follow guitar except for this beat.

So I guess the big things to look for is inconsistent rhythming and randomly skipping beats. If I just wrote that this mod would've taken an hour less to type orz

If there's anything here that you don't rly understand feel free to message me about it and I'll try to explain further.
Good luck with your future mapping!

---

awesometonychen wrote:

Here is short mod

Forward:
01:13:133 (2) - blanket? that would play poorly
01:20:056 (3,4) - I do not see the point of this double note as it doesn't really fit into the music imo first note is kick second is vocal
02:10:511 (2,3) - awkward spacing to these notes not sure what you mean, if you mean the space between 1 and 2 that's for emphasis on vocal(when holding the slider weirdishly) and then the drums on 2 and 3. if you mean spacing between 2 and 3 that's just for readability
02:12:084 (2,3) - blanket? its looks cooler this way aesthetically plus blanket would play worse
03:06:769 (2) - I suggest you make this a note I'm confused, is it not already a note? or do you want a double here instead, because if you want doube here it would be too dense for this section.
04:17:748 (2) - I don't think you should place this note here; you can blanket instead it plays well in this spot
04:20:476 (3) - shift to (207,157)? I think its easier to read not stacked, plus this psuedo stack is pretty consistent and with 1 on the opposite side of 3 (in relation to the following 2) it looks even cooler (at least to me). I did the same thing 02:44:811 (3,1) - (for a quick example)
04:23:832 (4,1) - blanket? if I did that there would be too much strength to 4 in relation to 1, 1 should be stronger, as the spacing suggests.

Maruyu wrote:

Hi, m4m.

Forward

1. 00:24:462 (2) - You could consider changing 00:24:462 (2) - into 2 circles to better represent the piano. Also, I feel like 00:24:462 (2,3) - also has an awkward angle in my opinion. 2 circles, but kept angle.
2. 00:28:028 (3,4) - I mentioned this on our IRC chat, I think this is one of those cases where the angle emphasizes the sound awkwardly because of the movement change. I think the angles help emphasis this section properly
3. 00:30:021 - you didn't skip this beat earlier so you might want to consider keeping it consistentfixed
4. 00:30:126 (4,1) - you could move these two a little far apart but that's just me because I don't like stuff too close to each other like that :p no
5. 00:31:175 (2) - You could change this as well into two circles, because the tail is... let's say "bigger" than the head. Usually and by slider nature the most emphasized beat should be on the head because it's interactive, it's where you hit the slider. There are cases where this doesn't really apply but since you follow mostly piano it should work better with 2 circles. Another argument in favor is that this sort of piano pattern happens several times before and you mapped them with circles re-arranged
6. 00:31:594 (3) - Same as above re-arranged
7. 00:32:014 (4,5) - stacking these is fine but you could make a slider out of these ones, again abiding by the guidelines above. re-arranged
8. 00:33:902 (5,1) - How about a slider here instead, instead of the two circles? It's good followup after 00:33:063 (4) - , and leads well into 00:34:532 (2) - in my opinion yeah but its not really a good follow for the fix I applied ahead to balance emphasis with more precise rhythming
9. 00:34:951 (3,4) - I believe the spacing here feels a bit forced for two reasons: first it's a very closed angle and second you mapped 00:35:161 - on a slider tail where it's mostly going to be ignored because of slider leniency. Consider changing slider into two circles here as well re arranged with two circles.
10. 00:37:259 (4,1) - you can boost spacing here again to emphasize the objects, because of the kick associated to them tried
11. 00:41:664 (4) - feels like a weird angle as well, it also doesn't highlight the piano very well at its head piano isn't that strong for too strong of emphasis, its ok for me
12. 00:43:133 - first time you ignore this sound, is this intended for vocal mapping in this section? Awkward since you've been leaning on piano so far I did similar before
13. 00:43:972 (1) - I like this
14. 00:44:601 (2) - wouldn't really stack this since it has a sound, maybe consider turning 00:44:601 (2,3) - into a slider? I don't like this suggestion because of how the current version plays ~ but I'll look into it
15. 00:45:021 (4,5) - what I said up there about sliders Doesn't seem applicable because the red tick notes are too weak
16. 00:45:860 (1,2) - stacking these (1 on top where 2 currently is) makes for good emphasis for 00:45:860 (1) - but rhythm could be improved imo. Try this, perhaps: http://puu.sh/qG8gg/3911fab899.jpg changed somewhat
17. 00:50:895 (1) - honestly fine but I'd rather see this unstacked
18. 00:51:734 (4,5,6,7) - weirdly structured imo, also I'd prefer to see that sort of linear flow we spoke about IRC. sturcture change to reflect intro to drum sounds
19. 00:55:301 (5) - keep in mind that the spacing this has to the previous slider is equal to the one you use for 1/4 placement so it can bring reading issues to the table yeah I like it ww
20. 00:57:399 (4,1) - I'd just stack them, imo brought back the old psuedo stack
21. 01:00:126 (2) - feels like a followup to vocals because of how you try to complement 00:59:287 (1) - , so using the fact most of it so far is mapped to piano some other sort of flow could feel better. Use this if you like it: http://puu.sh/qG8WQ/7fd80ff165.jpg (the highlighted note is 01:00:965 (1) - ) drums tho.
22. 01:00:965 (1,2,3) - feels like it could be awkward to play, try http://puu.sh/qG99Z/38826cba67.jpg and see if you like that better I like my way better. - I do similar stuff with sliders and drums anyways
23. 01:06:420 (3) - finish under all that stack triggers me but that should be fine
24. 01:10:615 (6,7,8) - mm it looks weird but its k xd
25. 01:16:490 (2,3,4) - equal spacing would probably feel better here oh lol, fixed
26. 01:29:916 (2,3,4) - try this instead, might feel a bit less awkward to play http://puu.sh/qG9IE/ff7d8c32a0.jpgI did something to help comprimise with other modders suggestions
27. 01:30:755 (5) - clap this instead of a finish, this fits better imo and gives more emphasis on 01:31:175 (1) - 's own finishok
28. 01:34:951 (2) - clap that, and 01:36:000 (7) - supports finish very well yee
29. 01:42:504 (4) - no stackerino pls no because current version allows for emphasis on 5 bc stop-move
30. 01:45:021 - I notice you change mostly to vocals here, much like you did with chorus since it makes stuff easier to map tbh. just wanting to point that out since I won't nag you over piano xd
31. 01:46:909 (2,3) - stack these instead, feels better imo disagreed. the amount of movement for 1 to 2 after stacking 2 on 3 would feel pretty bad and make 2&3 pretty weak

Forward

1. AR 8.3 plix
2. 00:33:692 - please dont skip this , theres clearly a vocal there lo
3. 00:38:308 - ^ unless u r strictly following the piano thingy
4. 00:40:615 - this sound is actually louder than 00:40:406 - so would be better if 00:40:615 - could be clickable
5. 00:45:441 (5,1) - they visually look very close and 00:45:860 (1) - is very easy to hit because players dont follow sliders until end xd well the point is that there is a very loud cymbal sound on 00:45:860 - so spacing 00:45:441 (5,1) - these more would be cool and give proper emphasis to that cymbal sound , i hope i m making ssense right now and not saying random words
6. 00:45:860 (1) - also u could add finish here to represent the cymbal sound in the background
7. 00:46:909 (4) - as i said before , the slider end supports a louder than the slider head. making 00:46:909 (4) - it a 1/2 slider wouldnt hurt and then add circle at 00:47:329 - to give proper emphasis to the song
8. 00:47:748 (1,2) - the spacing looks like ur average 1/2 spacing and most players are gonna misread it on sightread unless they are listening to the song properly so i recommend u to decrease spacing ... i know the drum sounds are loud and spacing is a bit too high
9. 00:48:378 (3,4,1) - even if they hit the previous triple , they are gonna misread it as a 1/4 triple , so i really recommend u to apply the above suggestion xd
10. 00:57:399 (4,1,2,3) - same as above , 00:57:399 (4,1) - these are 1/2 and 00:57:608 (1,2,3) - these are 1/4 while spacing looks same =w=
11. 01:01:490 (3,6) - the overlap looks ok but 01:01:490 (3,7) - this doesnt look good at all but whatever
12. 01:13:762 (6,7,1) - linear patterns like this are a pain to play ;-; especially with DT its gonna be hardcore , since the map is slow . players of my rank and higher will play this map with dt ofcourse
13. 01:22:364 (3,1) - bad transition .. also 01:22:573 (1) - space it out more to give proper emphasis to the cymbal sound in the bg
14. 01:25:091 (2,1) - oh man , this overlap looks very very ugly
15. 01:55:301 (3) - this is cute tho xd
16. 02:22:364 (3,4,5) - maybe do some nc or something to make it easier to read since its the first time 3/4 appeared on the map and it might be hard to read eh
17. 02:24:462 (4,5,6,7,1) - move all these in a way that the reverse arrow of 02:24:881 (1) - will stack with 02:26:350 (3) - ~ it would look cleaner and get rid of that ugly looking overlap
18. 02:50:895 (3,4,5) - consistent spacing?
19. 03:10:196 (1) - oh my this is sexy, gj
20. 03:13:972 (2) - 03:16:280 (3) - 03:17:329 (2) - 03:19:636 (3) - u could add nc on these to make the 1/2 jumps easier to read , NCs wont hurt , trust me
21. 03:24:881 (4,5) - extra spacing to emphasize cymbal sound at 03:25:091 - ?
22. 03:47:748 - pretty sure u r following vocals here but i swear i dont hear even a faintest vocal at 03:47:748 (2) - .-. deleting it would be nice for consistency
23. 04:02:014 (4,2) - overlap ;-;
24. 04:26:350 (3,1) - ^

Maruyu wrote:

Hi, m4m.

Forward

1. 01:59:497 (1) - this could have more oomph into it, consider unstacking 01:59:287 (4) - and using that to your advantage I feels its emphasized properly with current pattern
2. 02:01:385 (1,2,3) - not really a fan of those, but if you like it
3. 02:06:000 (3,1) - i suggest the same as 01:46:909 (2,3) - here I moved 3 this time since the spacing here is different.
4. 02:07:049 (2,3) - it's fine here imo because there's enough emphasis, and it gets complemented by 02:07:888 (4) - and by the fact it has more note density
5. 02:07:888 (4,1) - try stacking those and see if you like that better I've considered it before but I found this feels better
6. 02:08:098 (1,2) - notice how here you did the same thing I showed you with 01:00:126 (2) - there are fairly different pace wise to reflect the pace of the phrase. otherwise idk what you mean
7. 02:09:566 (1,2,3) - I'd avoid this spacing gap, can be confusing to play :( I liked it tho. but yeah I guess I see what you mean
8. 02:15:650 (3,4,5,1,2,3) - looks appealing visually, rhythmwise not so much. If you choose to look into it further let me know when you fix it so I can try helping out with rhythm suggestions I can just pm you and we can talk about it, but now I think about it yeah I see issue
9. 02:22:364 (3,4,5) - 02:22:364 (3) - and 02:22:678 (4) - as sliders work better if you are focusing on vocals s l i d e r s
10. 02:45:231 (1,3) - both notes hit a piano note so it'd make sense if 02:45:441 (2,3) - had a little more spacing sure kind of, but also considering drums here.
11. 02:46:699 (1) - not my #1 placement choice but you can keep if you like it lol
12. 02:49:636 (4,1) - maybe a little too close to each other? try https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5878964 and see if you like it I like it :3
13. 02:50:895 (3,4) - weird stacking here I think, I believe 02:50:895 (3,4,5) - would be better off with equal spacing since they map the same sort of sound yes and no, I increase the spacing between 3 and 4 but kept similar spacing for 4 and 5 because 5 is loud drum noise xddd
14. 02:53:413 - You sure you want to ignore that downbeat? I get that you mapped the slider to the vocal, but I think that sound is too strong to ignore made triple
15. 02:57:608 (4,5,6) - I think this section makes the jumps awkward to play since it plays almost in a straight line. pattern-wise it also looks like 02:57:818 (5) - should have more emphasis 5 gets the emphasis from the angle switch up and the awkward angle for "jumps" is intended
16. 03:03:063 (2) - slider thingy i mentioned up there it seems fine to me, don't really see the issue.
17. 03:16:280 (1) - consider NCíng this to at least try to make the spacing/time distance disruption more readable they are close enough to be readable.
18. 03:17:539 (3,4,5) - i understand the bump on spacing here but this makes the section less easy to read ok?
19. 03:18:797 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - 03:18:797 (1,2,3) - weird angle here, which in turn I'd dare say it hurts 03:19:636 (3,4) - readability I disagree since I still follow the ds and do similar before with somewhat varying angles
20. 03:20:266 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - i believe rhythmwise this feels better, because it helps support 03:21:944 (1,2) - on the piano since it ignores 03:21:525 -: http://puu.sh/qGd9F/712f32022d.jpg disagreed because it weakens the strong triple at the end
21. 03:28:238 (6,7,1,2,3) - feels messy, I'd double check this section and see if everything's where you want it. same as one of the examples before, if you want to mess around with it call me again I like how it is but I can pm you to discuss possible changes
22. 03:31:385 (5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - same as above true
23. 03:51:525 - how dropping strong vocals on sliders can look sugoi :3 nsm,fjasdfjlkas;djf;k :3
24. 03:56:979 (3,1) - stacking these is probably better, in similar cases you've stacked them either under one or another slider BUILD UP
25. 04:09:986 (3) - notice the clap on the tail of this slider; stuff like this should definitely be clickable! but but, I did same thing 3 times....
26. 04:10:406 (1) - remove the tail clap here ok
27. 04:12:084 (1,2,3,4) - perhaps this is a little bit too intense for this part of the chorus. idk, maybe it's just me other people liked it :/
28. 04:38:937 (4) - try stacking this under 04:39:147 (1) - and see if you like it better that makes 1 too weak
29. 04:41:664 (4,5,6) - too clumped up, 04:41:664 (4,6) - overlap as well ?
30. 04:55:511 (6) - try emphasizing this more because of the clap. I find that stacking it on 04:54:042 (1) -'s tail works wonderfully
31. 05:01:385 (2,3) - feels awkwardly placed imo, also 05:01:385 (2) - probably also needs a little bit more emphasis did a change
32. 05:08:098 (2,3) - aestherically wise, just keep the pattern like it was going. that 05:08:098 (2) - overlapping feels a bit forced boop

I'm not the best modder when it comes to hitsounds, so I'm sorry if I wasn't much help with that stuff ;w;

Good luck with this, ma boi

DeRandom Otaku wrote:

Forward

1. AR 8.3 plix keeping 8 for now
2. 00:33:692 - please dont skip this , theres clearly a vocal there lo
3. 00:38:308 - ^ unless u r strictly following the piano thingy opop
4. 00:40:615 - this sound is actually louder than 00:40:406 - so would be better if 00:40:615 - could be clickable tried to fix it
5. 00:45:441 (5,1) - they visually look very close and 00:45:860 (1) - is very easy to hit because players dont follow sliders until end xd well the point is that there is a very loud cymbal sound on 00:45:860 - so spacing 00:45:441 (5,1) - these more would be cool and give proper emphasis to that cymbal sound , i hope i m making ssense right now and not saying random words I did a change
6. 00:45:860 (1) - also u could add finish here to represent the cymbal sound in the background o k
7. 00:46:909 (4) - as i said before , the slider end supports a louder than the slider head. making 00:46:909 (4) - it a 1/2 slider wouldnt hurt and then add circle at 00:47:329 - to give proper emphasis to the song ok
8. 00:47:748 (1,2) - the spacing looks like ur average 1/2 spacing and most players are gonna misread it on sightread unless they are listening to the song properly so i recommend u to decrease spacing ... i know the drum sounds are loud and spacing is a bit too high disagree, the objects altogether close enough to the previous object and each other to read ok
9. 00:48:378 (3,4,1) - even if they hit the previous triple , they are gonna misread it as a 1/4 triple , so i really recommend u to apply the above suggestion xd highly disagree.
10. 00:57:399 (4,1,2,3) - same as above , 00:57:399 (4,1) - these are 1/2 and 00:57:608 (1,2,3) - these are 1/4 while spacing looks same =w= I'm aware of this and did it intentionally
11. 01:01:490 (3,6) - the overlap looks ok but 01:01:490 (3,7) - this doesnt look good at all but whatever I changed it slgihtly
12. 01:13:762 (6,7,1) - linear patterns like this are a pain to play ;-; especially with DT its gonna be hardcore , since the map is slow . players of my rank and higher will play this map with dt ofcourse I don't map for specific mods.
13. 01:22:364 (3,1) - bad transition .. also 01:22:573 (1) - space it out more to give proper emphasis to the cymbal sound in the bg yes
14. 01:25:091 (2,1) - oh man , this overlap looks very very ugly disagreed
15. 01:55:301 (3) - this is cute tho xd
16. 02:22:364 (3,4,5) - maybe do some nc or something to make it easier to read since its the first time 3/4 appeared on the map and it might be hard to read eh I changed the pattern in the previous mod so it should be easier now
17. 02:24:462 (4,5,6,7,1) - move all these in a way that the reverse arrow of 02:24:881 (1) - will stack with 02:26:350 (3) - ~ it would look cleaner and get rid of that ugly looking overlap its not quite possible to do that with the different length of sliders and the overlap isn't that ugly
18. 02:50:895 (3,4,5) - consistent spacing? changed in previous mod
19. 03:10:196 (1) - oh my this is sexy, gj thank you <3
20. 03:13:972 (2) - 03:16:280 (3) - 03:17:329 (2) - 03:19:636 (3) - u could add nc on these to make the 1/2 jumps easier to read , NCs wont hurt , trust me I NC'd fine, and its not that hard to read.
21. 03:24:881 (4,5) - extra spacing to emphasize cymbal sound at 03:25:091 - ? yeah I made a change
22. 03:47:748 - pretty sure u r following vocals here but i swear i dont hear even a faintest vocal at 03:47:748 (2) - .-. deleting it would be nice for consistency its a mix between piano and vocals allowing proper emphasis for both when applicable.
23. 04:02:014 (4,2) - overlap ;-; hoyl it's not awful. and current spacing and such plays well
24. 04:26:350 (3,1) - ^ yeah this one looked pretty garbage lmao

Thats it i guess.. gl gl